U.S. records set at nationals and worlds automatic? Not quite yet
USATF annual meeting site
This means marks won’t get the runaround as they commonly do now. But Rule 261.4 seems to leave an opening for any USATF meet to be the site of an automatic record.
Here’s what Rule 261.4 says, with emphasis added:
When an Open or Junior Men’s or Women’s national track and field record has been equaled or bettered in a USA National Championship, Olympic Trials, or other meet conducted by USATF, or in the Olympic Games, IAAF World Championship, IAAF World Cup, or other meet conducted by the IAAF or sanctioned as a Grand Prix or Permit meet by the IAAF, that record may be ratified based on the official results of the meet without the need for a formal record application, pending the outcome of doping control testing.
(Of course, USATF masters don’t have to be drug-tested to have their records ratified. That’s a can of worms.)
In addition to a slew of throws pentathlon tweaks, the proposed USATF rules changes include the addition of an 800-meter relay at indoor nationals and the shuttle hurdle relays at outdoor nationals.
And Item 108, submitted by George Kleeman on behalf of masters multi-eventer David Ortman, deals with the aggravating issue of open lanes in finals. Why not let the ninth- and 10th-fastest qualifiers advance to the final of one of the top 8 pulls out of the final?
Under amended Rule 332.2(b), we would have this rule:
When an individual or relay team, having qualified for a subsequent round, withdraws for any reason, the fastest non-qualifier who notifies meet officials of his/her availability to compete will ((may)) be advanced to fill the vacated position. When an individual or team is disqualified, Rule 166.7 applies.
And elite masters high jumpers will love a rule change submitted by Kleeman on behalf of masters high jumper Ron Lee:
Three consecutive failures, regardless of the height at which such failures occur, disqualifies the competitor from further competition except in the case of a jump-off to break a tie for first place. A competitor may be permitted one warm-up jump with the crossbar (1) if he or she has passed the starting height and passed four or more subsequent consecutive heights or (2) if he or she has passed the starting height and it has been one hour or more since the competition began without commencing jumping.
Masters age groups in various cross country events also are modified. Check out the proposals, and let me know if I’ve missed anything major.
10 Responses
This is a very nice step. Imagine going to a national masters championship, soundly thrashing an American record, and then seeing your mark consigned to the wastebasket. Pretty tough to take, I would think.
And I still like the idea that certain other USATF meets would provide automatic acceptance of records. For example, in 2008 Kay Glynn broke the world W55 mark in the pole vault at the Pacific Association (USATF) championships.
The pole vault officials said she did it, and the referee surely signed off on it, but masters T&F denied the record. Kay asked for an appeal but did not get one. In my view that should have been an automatic record — how can you go to a championship like that, have the officials say you set a record, and not get approval? But even today, November 7, 2010, the mark is not shown at usatf.org.
Historically, the fact that the acknowledged best marks are often not the listed records does not seem to have bothered a lot of people. So what, seems to be the attitude of many. Thus, you get the strange situation that even today you have marks listed that are nowhere near the all-time bests; there is even one mark that is not in the top 10.
Oh, well, I have been roundly (and soundly) criticized for writing about this, and I expect I will be criticized again now that I have written this comment.
would records set at the Penn Relays also be automatically recognized? I’m thinking of the individual events as well as the relays.
Thank you Steve,
Go New England!!!!!!!
I wonder if these items are retroactive.
Alluding to Pete’s comments, I seek openness in this process. We have the Wikipedia Masters Athletics World Records and will soon have the same thing for American Masters Records. That should be a simple cut and paste job, but it isn’t. So we will be left with a list of superior performances that are not ratified. I can’t even claim that the list will ever be 100%. However, across the board (Youth, Open) the USATF records committee should publicly post a list of such records, or the ones that have been applied for, and the dispensation for those applications. The USATF official website is the perfect place to place such a report.
For some records, less than the existing record (yes that happens, as an official I have signed off on applications for athletes who think they have set records, only to find that there are better marks already on the books) the results should be obvious. Some records might not be applied for, by elimination on such a list, we will know it is the absence of the application that caused the omission. But when there is a superior mark, the reason for rejection should be specified. Again, some of those decisions will be obvious–failed drug test, no wind reading whatever. With that decision, there should also be a defined process for appeal of that decision through a neutral committee.
This isn’t a new rule proposal, this would be procedural. Perhaps somebody attending in Virginia Beach can make such a proposal.
Thank you, Andrew, I know that you are right on top of these issues. By the way, speaking of things that are “procedural”: In all my years of processing records, I have never had a starter say something like the following after I asked him/her to sign my record form:
“You know, Peter, I am not going to sign the form. Today I just felt like letting the competitors start a little early. And the recall starters felt the same way: the competitors are masters, they need an early start. And so I am not going to sign your form.”
No, they reach for a pen and sign the form (in 100% of the cases). Thus, this is the essence of something that is purely procedural. The key issues, in my opinion, do not involve whether the starter signs the form but rather (a) how good is the starter, and (b) are there recall starters? These issues should actually be our focus if we want to be absolutely “tight” about things(just a small point I thought I would throw in).
Another small point: In June I got a chance to meet a 1996 Olympian at the Southeastern Masters Meet in Raleigh (she doesn’t participate in our meets, as a rule).
She was astounded to find that a mark set by a masters athlete at the Penn Relays that is (a) certified by the starter (a fair start was given),(b) certified by the FAT chief, and (c) made part of the permanent record of the Penn Relays and broadcast by Penn to the world, can be thrown out by masters T&F. I assured her it had happened.
The intent of my submission is to accept masters record performances – unless evidence to the contrary – that are achieved at those highest level meets stated in the rule for open athletes. Then we’ll recognize a certain caliber of events for their inherent quality and be done with the tired discussion Allen Johnson having to chase down signatures at the IAAF World Championships
“Conducted by USATF” means events such as international matches and invitationals conducted by the national organization, not events merely sanctioned by USATF (which would include local association championships).
If it’s interpreted to “leave an opening for any USATF meet to be the site of an automatic record”, then I will work on additional language to close that potential loophole. The proposal is to make the automatic approval of masters records the same as open records – and open events below the level listed in the submission must follow the existing procedures.
Steve
The rules process is not easy to figure out. I wanted to thank George Kleeman for submitting Item 108, which would require empty lanes in masters finals to be filled if the 9th or 10th place qualifier is ready and willing to run:
Item 108
Lad Pataki’s world record in the weight pentathlon at the 2001 WMA Brisbane, Australia was not ratified because of a downsloping discus field. While the field should have been certified before the competition, the record should not have been ratified under the circumstances. I don’t think records should be automatic just because they were made in a championship.
Side note: As far as I understand the process . . .
Rule submittals must be made several months in advance via a formal process. And not something
new brought up at the Convention.
It’s worth going to the USATF Convention atleast once to get an idea of what goes on, and also attend the Hall of Fame Dinner.
Leave a Reply